According to an ABC report http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678070.htm people are refusing to take tests that might detect a genetic susceptibility to particular diseases, because it might prevent them taking out life insurance.

This set me thinking. The purpose of insurance is to spread risk across a large group who pool sufficient resources to cover the average risk. While most won't collect, a few will, and for them the money will ensure that the happening of the insured event is not financially catastrophic.

We accept that insurers should be able to discriminate between risks. Younger drivers pay higher premiums, teetotal drivers can get cheaper premiums. Premises where food is fried at high temperature will pay more for insurance than say a clothing retailer, because of the fire risk. If you build a house in the middle of a flood plain you may not be able to obtain flood insurance.

But all these are generally examples of things that you can opt-out from. No-one forces you to drive, or cook fish and chips, or live in a flood plain. But we can't choose our parents, and so have no control over our genetics. So should insurance of the person proceed on the same principles as insurance of things?

I'd be deeply troubled if health insurers were allowed to penalise people with genetic susceptibilities because of the increased risk. Discriminating against people who have unhealthy habits is also problematic. Part of my reasoning here is that health insurance is really part of the apparatus of social security these days, and social security ought to be as widely available as necessary.

But I'm not so sure about life insurance, which is in my view more optional than health insurance. Although we all probably have death cover as part of our compulsory superannuation.

So what do others think? Where can you draw the line? Should insurers be able to take increased health risk into account?

The era of genomic medicine is upon us. At the moment you can get your genome sequenced for about $40K. When this gets to under $5K and eventually under $1K, genome sequencing will be a matter of routine, like x-rays or allergy tests. Once done, the genome features will remain on file, so that medications and treatments that are likely to work can be prescribed, and those that are potentially harmful can be avoided. Make no mistake, this sort of research is being conducted right now.

I think that because of this, insurers may actually end up penalising those who do not have a genome on record, as this will then constitute an unknown risk to them. At least if you have your genome sequenced many of the genetic risk factors will be known and can be managed.

Crocodile tears, Graham. You supported the Howard government to the hilt, even while it tried to hand over our universal healthcare to the insurance privateers, and you continue to protect Turnbull via editorial interference.

Hypocrisy notwithstanding, insurers are businesses and are expected to configure their coverage for maximum return. No-one with a genetic predisposition to disease should include private cover in their plans.

Thankfully, we have a public system that protects all Australians, and which the private-care-dominated US is attempting to emulate.

Graham Y >'I'd be deeply troubled if health insurers were allowed to penalise people with genetic susceptibilities because of the increased risk'.

I can't imagine that the insurance companies would be able to penalise people in these cases because there is only a genetic possibility they might develop a disease or disorder.
However, I know they already penalise people whose parents have high blood pressures or diabetes, so who knows?

Sancho, we do indeed have medicare that is supposed to protect all Australians, but only those who are prepared to wait (unless it is a dire emergency)!

Personally, I could never give up private health cover because I have worked in both private and public hospitals all my life and I don't want any 'Doctor Butcher' who is the only one on call on the night I present to emergency at a public hospital!
I want to choose who I see.

I too heard the story and I think it is much more about life insurance than health insurance.
It is even being used to check suitability for some jobs.
In some instances used like a criminal record check.
However unfair it is you can expect it to be used
Insurance has always been about money and risks.

It would be very concerning if insurance companies could refuse insurance or raise premiums (to unaffordable) for those with genetic predispositions. Lets face it we are all gentically disposed to something.

Insurance is about spreading the risk. The risk is no more for someone predisposed to diabetes if they live a healthy life than for anyone to be hit by a bus. This is one of those cases where as a collective we can ensure that others are not disadvantaged (or their families) should they meet an untimely death, for those who choose to take out insurance.

Is this the start of a new brave world: (I can see it now - the year is 2090 and all the genetically predisposed humans have been hived off to live in the sewers, or have died through natural attrition and only the super human clones have survived. Vaccines for cancer and diabetes are only available to the rich and the sub-humans who dwell in the tunnels under the city live with the threat of whooping cough and other diseases everyday. Life insurance is not available to the sub-humans who are at greater risk of disease. The super clones enjoy low premiums and the only deaths ever recorded are from accidents from the airborne automotives that whip through the skies at ever-increasing speeds...)